Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!cs.umn.edu!dmshq!com50!craig
From: craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Fool
Message-ID: <1990Nov4.031734.19127@com50.c2s.mn.org>
Date: 4 Nov 90 03:17:34 GMT
References: <18667@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Nov2.191240.4568@lavaca.uh.edu> <18684@rpp386.cactus.org> <1990Nov3.193714.4223@lavaca.uh.edu>
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Lines: 57

jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes:
>rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>jet@karazm.math.uh.edu (J. Eric Townsend) writes:
>>>rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>>>And as always, I'd love to say more, but I can't.
>>>"I have here a list..."
>>Eric, you are such an incredible dick.
>I know you are, but what am I?

So, this is the Electronic Frontier?  Based upon what I have seen lately, it
looks like a pretty barren landscape where not much will grow (up!).

At least in the American Frontier of the last century, this kind of discussion
would lead out into the street where it would be settled in short order so that
the rest of us could get back into the saloon to finish our drinks.

I can see it now, 
<fade to a barroom scene, with a number of cowpokes drinkin' and playin' cards.
At the bar, standing a few feet from each other, are two cowboys.  They are NOT
discussing the latest stockyard report.>


"Bart, you are such an incredible dick!"

<The piano player stops playin' and all eyes are on the two cowboys.>

"I know you are, bu" <BLAM> <BLAM>

<One of the cowboys slumps to the floor.  The other finishes his whiskey, 
takes one glance around around and turns back to the bartender.  Everyone 
else goes back to playin' cards and drinkin' while the piano player starts up 
again.>


<fade back to the present where everyone is hunched in front of a CRT of one
sort or another.>

I know that it has occurred to people that not all types of communications 
can be handled via newsgroups or electronic mail.  Especially in our current 
primitive state, there is just no way for one person (or side) to WIN.
But then, we have not developed a graceful way to extricate oneself from 
such a feud with honor.

One of the factors contributing to the decline of shoot outs in the street was
probably prosecution of the "winner" on any of a number of charges.  The
"loser", in fatal shootings at least, would fail to partake in any future shoot
outs.  Perhaps, some sort of "prosecution" of the combatants is needed?  And
then, once justice has been meted out, the participants would be left alone to
see the error in their past behaviour and would not be bombarded with secondary
and tertiary postings from others.

Of course, that implies a central authority, or a set of authorities adhering 
to a written code.  And, I can guess most peoples' opinion on that subject.

Oh, well!  I was just thinking.  Now, back to the captivating exchange.

/craig